Wasserman Schultz, Democrats did not tilt 2016 primary in Clinton’s favor, judicial panel rules

[ZiprHead]

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-sanders-clinton-wasserman-schultz-lawsuit-struck-down-20191028-s36qtwldjvhmjawzis7b6hi5ci-story.html

With the first contest of the 2020 Democratic presidential race less than 100 days away in Iowa, a federal appeals court Monday might have ended one of the still-simmering battles from 2016.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit filed by some Democratic donors and Bernie Sanders supporters that alleged wrongdoing by the Democratic National Committee and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the 2016 presidential primary process.

Boiled down, the lawsuit alleged that “during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, the DNC and Ms. Wasserman Schultz improperly tipped the scales in favor of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was challenging Senator Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination,” the ruling said.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Didn't illegally tilt the primaries, and it sounds like it was a metaphysical argument by the Sanders supporters et al, not a legal one. Sanders lost in the south. And that had nothing to do with the DNC.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's see how this will be spun into part of the conspiracy theory and otherwise denied by Sanders bots in five.....four.....three..........

 

[laughing dog]

Let's see how this will be spun into part of the conspiracy theory and otherwise denied by Sanders bots in five.....four.....three..........

Clearly this is part of a plot by deep stat infected by the rot and corruption of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

[Derec]

Since DNC/DWS definitely tilted the field in favor of Hillary, this decision merely means that the court deems such thumb-on-the-scale legal.

 

[blastula]

The headline is misleading. They didn't rule on what the DNC did. The plaintiffs lost mostly over standing. They can refile on some claims.

But still no, Clinton didn't win because of a conspiracy or something unfair, she won because she got more votes democratically. There were people in the DNC that did prefer Clinton but they didn't control the voting. If anything, the primaries we're biased in Sanders's favor because of all the undemocratic caucuses where he did better.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The headline is misleading. They didn't rule on what the DNC did. The plaintiffs lost mostly over standing. They can refile on some claims.

But still no, Clinton didn't win because of a conspiracy or something unfair, she won because she got more votes democratically. There were people in the DNC that did prefer Clinton but they didn't control the voting. If anything, the primaries we're biased in Sanders's favor because of all the undemocratic caucuses where he did better.

They controlled the debate schedule, had borrowed money from Hillary Clinton, fed some questions to her, etc. It probably didn't decide who the nominee would become, but it wasn't truly fair. But the only legal question would be if any of it was illegal. That's very unlikely. There's no law requiring the Democratic Party to be Democratic, as also seen by the existence of "super delagates" that existed at the time. Its ironic how the Democratic Party is actually LESS transparent, open and fair than the Republican Party in choosing their nominees. And yes, the headline is misleading.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

They controlled the debate schedule

Wrong.

had borrowed money from Hillary Clinton

Not from her personally, from her campaign and because the DNC was basically bankrupt.

fed some questions to her

Wrong, the DNC had nothing to do with that.

but it wasn't truly fair.

Wrong and irrelevant regardless.